Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Update on Software Patents in the EU

Posted by Hemos on from the help-me-obi-wan-kenobi dept.

jmason writes "An update on the EU's deliberations regarding software patents is up on the www.freepatents.org site: "the European member states of the Munchen convention have decided to wait for one more year before taking a decision on article 52.2, which says that computer programmes as such are not patentable. The European Commission (DGXV) seems to be pushing for more software patents rather than for more control on trivial software patents with no industrial application." "

4 of 18 comments (clear)

  1. I will fight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

    I have written few pieces of free software that infringe on numerous US patents. Even if the EU law changes to allow software patenting I will continue and go down as a martyr if need be.

    I don't have the time or the will to investigate whether something is patented or not. If it suits my purposes I will use it and release the source. How am I supposed to know if something in an scientific article is patented or not. I don't care, so sue me.

    Destroying free software by patenting is unethical, I urge people to boycott all companies that are restricting non-profit software by suing free software authors. Free software is for the common good and if companies are against it then they are also agaist their customers, the people. Software copyrights are enough. If they develop some revolutionary technology then let them keep it secret for all I care. Restricting programming freedom is the same as restricting the freedom of speech, the source code is my opininion and I'm entitled to express it in public.

  2. IBM was trying to get a Patent for WHAT???!!! by Bretai · · Score: 3
    Did anyone click on the 96305851.6? It looks like IBM was trying to get a patent in Europe for:
    Title of invention: Method and system in a data processing system windowing environment for displaying previously obscured information
    I've been a Database programmer for many years, and I can tell you, the above description can mean about anything.
    Does anyone remember when OpenMarket patented the web shopping cart? This shows how moot the patent process has become reguarding software.
    If you missed it, i recommend reading the Herring article: "I'm gonna sue your ass" it really points out the folley of patenting software. My humble opinion is that all the patents do is make it hard for anyone to compete unless they have a million dollar patenting department full of IP (Intelectual Property) lawyers. Patents are a hold over from "Ivory Tower/cathedral" programming, discourage colaboration. The exact opposite of the Open Source ideals. I hope the EU gets the point. Even if the US still hasn't...
    --
    Controlling complexity is the essence of computer programming. -Brian Kernigan
  3. Software patents are unclever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but software patents are a copyright on a thought or an idea.
    How common isn't it that ideas on a particular topic pops up in several places around
    the globe at roughly the same time. Tough for the poor sod that happened to be a day
    later in discovering/developing something revolutionary. All the months of hard work
    and the effort put in to the work. Someone else happened to patent the idea
    24 hours earlier.

    Or, like Microsoft, invent all sorts of diffrent descriptions of invented and imaginary
    things and make them as fuzzy as possible, patent them and hope that someday, someone
    will invent something that could be covered by their patents so they can sue for patent
    infringments.

    I know, they aren't the only ones doing it, but they happen to have the copyright on
    something so silly as icons. What if they started pursuing that particular patent?

    Patents on ideas and thoughts as well as algorithms and code can only be
    a bad thing. Maybe not for the owner of the patent, but for the world as a whole.

    1. Re:Software patents are unclever by TimoT · · Score: 2

      > Or, like Microsoft, invent all sorts of diffrent
      > descriptions of invented and imaginary things
      > and make them as fuzzy as possible, patent them
      > and hope that someday, someone will invent
      > something that could be covered by their patents
      > so they can sue for patent infringments.

      And wait till it gets popular before they sue, so they get money without working for it.

      In one instance I started to write a modular software synthesizer that produces compiled code from signal processing network descriptions (still working on it). I found a M$ patent on componentized signal processing, which is about the same thing (ie. generate code run-time from abstract filter descriptions to cut procedure call overhead, reverb was mentioned). The M$ patent was filed in June 1997 and Common Lisp Music, which is from 1991 has done it already, we discussed this on music-dsp and other companies had also done this but not patented it. So much for knowledge of events outside the company boundary. I'm not even aware if they are using this thing anywhere. If this was a valid patent (which it isn't, because of prior art, the important stuff isn't valid anyway) you could say byebye to efficient modular software synthesizers that emulate old analog software synthesizers (that is, from anyone else than M$).